Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 10 Aug 2021 14:57:05 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>, Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] cpufreq: Auto-register with energy model
Message-ID: <20210810092705.ctf43hwhzdepmcrv@vireshk-i7>
References: <cover.1628579170.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <6449a61f-a5fc-0b81-65b2-7bf77b8a71aa@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6449a61f-a5fc-0b81-65b2-7bf77b8a71aa@arm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 10-08-21, 10:17, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> Hi Viresh,
> 
> I like the idea, only small comments here in the cover letter.
> 
> On 8/10/21 8:36 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Provide a cpufreq driver flag so drivers can ask the cpufreq core to register
> > with the EM core on their behalf. This allows us to get rid of duplicated code
> > in the drivers and fix the unregistration part as well, which none of the
> > drivers have done until now.
> 
> The EM is never freed for CPUs by design. The unregister function was
> introduced for devfreq devices.

I see. So if a cpufreq driver unregisters and registers again, it will
be required to use the entries created by the registration itself,
right ? Technically speaking, it is better to unregister and free any
related resources and parse everything again.

Lets say, just for fun, I want to test two copies of a cpufreq driver
(providing different set of freq-tables). I build both of them as
modules, insert the first version, remove it, insert the second one.
Ideally, this should just work as expected. But I don't think it will
in this case as you never parse the EM stuff again.

Again, since the routine is there already, I think it is better/fine
to just use it.

> > This would also make the registration with EM core to happen only after policy
> > is fully initialized, and the EM core can do other stuff from in there, like
> > marking frequencies as inefficient (WIP). Though this patchset is useful without
> > that work being done and should be merged nevertheless.
> > 
> > This doesn't update scmi cpufreq driver for now as it is a special case and need
> > to be handled differently. Though we can make it work with this if required.
> 
> The scmi cpufreq driver uses direct EM API, which provides flexibility
> and should stay as is.

Right, so I left it as is for now.

-- 
viresh